HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2571/2000 Jaipur Development Authority, through the Secretary, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma son of Shri Govind Ram through Shri R.C. Jain, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Rajasthan, 42, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, ‘C’ Scheme, Jaipur.

2. The Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar with Mr. Digvijay Singh For Respondent(s) : None present JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

26/03/2025

1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 17.05.1999 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’), by which the statement of claim submitted by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) against his termination order dated 08.10.1988 has been allowed and a direction has been issued for his reinstatement in service with backwages.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman before the Labour Court alleging therein that he was working as a daily wager with the petitioner-Department since February, 1988 and his services were terminated vide order dated 08.10.1988 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation. Counsel submits that the specific case of the workman before the Labour Court was that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) and without following the mandatory provisions contained therein, his services have been terminated. Counsel submits that the workman was engaged as daily wager with the Rehabilitation Department in the Month of February, 1988 and the said department furnished the petitioner’s working details in the format of a chart, which reflects that the total working days of the workman in the month of February were 13 days, in March 26 days, in April-26 days, in May-26 days, in June-26 days and in July-26 days in the year 1988 respectively, and thereafter, the workman worked with the petitioner-JDA in the month of August for 27 days, in September for 26 days and in October for 05 days in the year 1988. Counsel submits that if the total working days of the workman are calculated, it is lesser than 240 days. Counsel submits that even if the Sundays and other holidays are added in the total working period of the workman, still he has not completed 240 days in the preceding calendar year of the date of his termination, hence, under these circumstances, the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 are not attracted. Counsel submits that overlooking this material aspect of the matter, the claim petition submitted by the workman has been allowed by the Labour Court merely on the basis of the assumptions and presumptions drawn, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-workman, in-spite of service.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the statement of claim submitted by the workman before the Labour Court indicates that he was engaged as a daily wager by the Rehabilitation Department in the month of February, 1988 and he continued to work with the said department till July, 1988, thereafter, he was engaged with the petitioner-department, where he continued to work till 8^th October, 1988. It is the case of the workman that without following the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, his services were terminated. The Labour Court has allowed his statement of claim by holding that the workman has proved the fact on the record that he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year with the petitioner-department, hence, there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and accordingly, h